On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:16:54 -0500
Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From 9b7b518633fd3187c7efe260fe20a0961e4a5f0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Steve French <sfrench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:00:26 -0500
> Subject: [CIFS] ls on mounts to WindowsCE failing with invalid level message
>
> Mount succeeds to WindowsCE but when user tries
> to access the contents of the directory gets "NT Status:
> STATUS_INVALID_LEVEL" according to wireshark.
>
> This server does not support the common windows
> readdir (Findfirst) level 257 nor level 258, so "fall back"
> to level 260 if get an EOPNOTSUPP on level FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO
> and while we are at it fall back to level 1 (FILE_INFO_STANDARD)
> for very old servers if we get an EOPNOTSUPP on level 260.
> (Note that the server returned errors on queries for inode
> numbers via QueryPathInfo so we don't use the infolevel
> SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIR_INFO)
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Bryan James <Bryan.James.Krone-EXT@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/cifs/readdir.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/readdir.c b/fs/cifs/readdir.c
> index 5de03ec..ed29706 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/readdir.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/readdir.c
> @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ ffirst_retry:
> cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level = SMB_FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO;
> }
>
> +ffirst_retry_with_std_level:
> rc = CIFSFindFirst(xid, pTcon, full_path, cifs_sb->local_nls,
> &cifsFile->netfid, &cifsFile->srch_inf,
> cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags &
> @@ -283,7 +284,23 @@ ffirst_retry:
> (cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags & CIFS_MOUNT_SERVER_INUM)) {
> cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags &= ~CIFS_MOUNT_SERVER_INUM;
> goto ffirst_retry;
> + } else if ((rc == -EOPNOTSUPP) && (cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level ==
> + SMB_FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO)) {
^^^^ there's no need for the extra sets of parenthesis
here. That violates kernel coding conventions and makes this
harder to read.
> + /* Windows CE can return EOPNOTSUPP on FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO */
> + cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level =
> + SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO;
^^^^
The code doesn't currently use
BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO anywhere. Would it be
better to skip this step?
> + goto ffirst_retry_with_std_level;
> + } else if ((rc == -EOPNOTSUPP) && (cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level ==
> + SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO)) {
> + cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level =
> + SMB_FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO;
^^^^
Ditto here. Would it be best to just fall back
to the lowest common denominator here? I'm not sure
I see a lot of benefit in using any of these
other infolevels. We'll basically get the same
info out of SMB_FIND_FILE_INFO_STANDARD and it's
more widely supported.
> + goto ffirst_retry_with_std_level;
> + } else if ((rc == -EOPNOTSUPP) && (cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level ==
> + SMB_FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO)) {
> + cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level = SMB_FIND_FILE_INFO_STANDARD;
> + goto ffirst_retry_with_std_level;
> }
> +
> error_exit:
> kfree(full_path);
> cifs_put_tlink(tlink);
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
